Another: does it take into account the difficulty in getting "Player of the Series" if you are in a more dominant team? Or even if you play for a lesser team which may lose and usually the POS goes to a player on the winning side; whereas a player on the losing side may have been very good?

Sorry, I have skimmed through and might have missed something; so forgive me if that's the case.

Seems as if the ratings put a lot of emphasis onm the strength of attacks faced and I guess (not guess i know) Tendy didnt do too well against the stronger attacks. Same for Lara but he never faced teams like Zim and SL in the 90s who both had lesser attacks thru much of the 90s.

Another: does it take into account the difficulty in getting "Player of the Series" if you are in a more dominant team? Or even if you play for a lesser team which may lose and usually the POS goes to a player on the winning side; whereas a player on the losing side may have been very good?

Sorry, I have skimmed through and might have missed something; so forgive me if that's the case.

Mr Incredible's comment notwithstanding, I did find on checking that I'd missed a series against Australia which Tendulkar was Man of the Series for (actually, I hadn't missed it, I'd saved over it with data from a subsequent series - remember, to err is human, to forgive divine!) - I'll enter that data, check nothing else is missed and re-run the numbers.

Sometimes a player on the losing side will get the POS, more likely in a close series (it's unlikely a player on the wrong end of a 0-5 spanking would get it), but I agree it usually goes to a player on the winning side. Not sure what you mean about the difficulty in getting POS if you are in a more dominant team?